The main legal point established in the judgment is that revenue entries in the revenue records cannot be mutated in accordance with a final decree and must be done as per the registered deeds executed by the parties. The court also emphasized the authority of the Civil Court's decree over the mutation of names in the revenue records.

JUDGMENT

VISHWAJITH SHETTY J. - This intra court appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioners challenging the order dtd. 15/6/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14932/2021.

2. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records are, one Basavalingaiah had five children viz., Basavaiah, Rathnamma (appellant no.1), Nagamma, Gowramma (mother of respondents 5 & 6) and Shanthamma (respondent no.4.). The daughters of Basavalingaiah had instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.788/1989 in respect of five items of agricultural lands against their brother Basavaiah. Smt. Nagamma who was originally one of the plaintiff in O.S.No.788/1989 was subsequently transposed as defendant no.2 in the said suit. O.S.No.788/1989 was decreed on 11/11/1993 and the plaintiffs and defendants were held entitled for 1/5th share in the schedule properties. As against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.788/1989, defendant no.1 - Basavaiah had filed R.A.No.1/1994, which was dismissed on 23/1/2022 and the Regular Second Appeal filed by him in R.S.A.No.327/2002 was also dismissed on 10/12/2007. Therefore, the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.788/1989 had attained finality.

3. During the pendency of the Regular Appeal, the plaintiffs had initiated final decree proceedings before the Trial Court in FDP.No.28/1994 and a final decree was also drawn on 11/10/2001. In the meanwhile, the revenue entries in respect of the lands which were the subject matter of the suit were ordered to be mutated in the name of the children of late Basavalingaiah as per the mutation orders passed in M.R.No.18/1996-97. Thereafter, Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Shanthamma allegedly agreed for the revenue entries to be mutated in favour of appellant no.1 herein, and accordingly, the name of appellant no.1 was entered in the revenue records on 31/12/2001. Subsequently, Gowramma, Shanthamma and appellant no.1 herein jointly sold certain portion of the land under two registered sale deeds dtd. 18/1/2011. After executing the aforesaid sale deeds, on 7/5/2011 appellant no.1 herein has gifted the remaining land in favour of her daughter - appellant no.2 herein under a registered gift deed and based on the said document, the khatha of the land which was the subject matter of the gift deed was transferred in the name of appellant no.2.

4. When the matter stood thus, the legal representatives of Gowramma and Shanthamma, have preferred an appeal under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), before the Assistant Commissioner, challenging the entries made in the revenue records of the land which were the subject matter of the suit, on the ground they are contrary to the final decree. The Assistant Commissioner had dismissed the appeal and in revision, the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and had directed to enter the names in the revenue records of the lands in question in accordance with the final decree passed in FDP.No.28/1994. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants had filed W.P.No.14932/2021 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal under Sec. 136(2) of the Act was filed after a delay of 10 years, and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in dismissing the same. She submits that with the consent of her sisters - Gowramma and Shanthamma, the revenue records of the property were changed in the name of appellant no.1 and the three sisters have jointly executed the sale deed in respect of the portion of the land. She submits that thereafter a registered gift deed has been executed in the name of appellant no.2 and already entries are made in the name of appellant no.2 on the strength of the registered gift deed. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner direct